2004 Summer Olympics

No. Definitely a conspiracy, like those so called moon landings.

If you want to make the case that the BBC was breaking the rules under which it operates, and intentionally highlighting the DOW billboard, then make it.The article you linked to in the Indian Express wasn't making that claim. It's you who seems to be implying it, but actually making the case needs more than childish sarcasm.

My sarcasm was warranted because I knew that you were implying something that you couldn't support. And, of course, you won't be able to support what you were implying with your "coincidence" comment, will you?Are you going to give us evidence that the BBC was intentionally breaking the rules under which it operates, or not?

Do you mean that that phrase wasn't meant to imply that it probably was not an accident? Your reply to my conspiracy comment seems to indicate that you think that the BBC was involved in corruption. If it was, heads should roll, which is why I'm asking you for evidence.Got any?

Note that I did not argue against your views on DOW, its environmental record, or its appropriateness in the Olympics at all.But it's only natural that I should be interested in what seemed to me to be an only slightly veiled accusation of corruption in another corporation of which I happen to be part owner, and whose standards of behaviour are important to me.As for corporate sponsorship of the Olympics by DOW or anyone else, I'd do away with it entirely. The companies pass the costs onto consumers anyway, so the idea that we get things cheaper in this way is actually an illusion. In fact, the cost of the billboard is passed on too. We could put a Olympics tax on large companies instead, which would also get passed on to consumers in the same way, but at least we'd save the bloody billboard costs.